Two teens decide to take revenge on the school bully by pulling the perfect prank, but their plan has deadly consequences.

Synopsis:

Holding a bloody wrench as he speaks into the camera, teenager Connor Burns proclaims that he and his friends are not murderers. Police sirens can be heard in the background.

Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Case File: 4-CA-57405 – Connor tries out a new video camera with his friends Jordan Bloom and Chunk. Jordan uses the camera to rehearse a birthday skit for his crush, Eve Goodwin. When the camera begins malfunctioning, Connor takes it to be repaired. It is revealed that while at the electronics store, school bully Dax Gaiman threw the camera at Connor’s face and broke his nose. Connor tells Jordan and Chunk that they should exact revenge.

As Connor and Jordan begin filming their revenge video at the park, Dax shows up with his buddy Omar. Dax and Omar accost the two boys in the bathroom. Dax forces Connor’s head into an unflushed toilet. When video of the incident goes viral, Connor is given the nickname “Sh*tface.”

Dressed in Star Trek uniforms and clown masks at school, Connor lays out the details of his revenge prank, which involves an unloaded gun. Jordan points out the stupidity and danger inherent in Connor’s plan.

For Eve’s birthday, Jordan gifts her a family heirloom. Eve dissuades Jordan from being friends with Connor.

Jordan creates an alternative revenge plan that involves egging and toilet papering Dax’s house. While filming their prank, the camera captures Dax having an intimate encounter with Omar through the window. Connor and Jordan retreat to Jordan’s house where Connor attempts to upload the video. Dax shows up shortly thereafter. Connor uses a skateboard to knock Dax unconscious and then ties up the bully in Jordan’s father’s workshop. Using the gun, Connor pretends to play Russian roulette with Dax. When Eve shows up at the front door, Connor exits the workshop to try to make her leave. After she is gone, Connor hears a noise from the workshop. When he returns, it appears as though Jordan shot and killed Dax in Connor’s absence.

Connor enlists Chunk for help in determining what to do. Later, Connor discovers Jordan acting as if he has PTSD. He also discovers bloody garbage bags and a bloody chainsaw in the workshop. Omar comes looking for Dax and Connor takes him to Jordan’s. Jordan appears to hit Omar over the head and kill him. Jordan then forces Connor to help him bury two sets of bloody garbage bags in the backyard.

Connor gradually begins to wonder if he is losing his mind. Eventually, it is revealed that the prank was being played on him and no one actually died. Jordan was in on the plan in order to impress Eve, but she ignores him afterwards. It also ends his friendship with Connor.

Two months later, Jordan has Connor and Chunk come to his house. He reveals that Dax and Eve are being held hostage in the workshop. Faulting Dax for sleeping with Eve, who also pawned his birthday gift, and the both of them for the fallout stemming from the prank, his solution is to execute them both with Connor’s help. Jordan shoots and kills Dax. Connor takes a wrench and hits Jordan. He then films the confession seen at the start of the film.

Review:

POSSIBLY MILD *SPOILERS*

This review of “Prank” is being written on June 19, 2013. Two and a half weeks ago, HBO aired the penultimate episode in season three of the hit television series “Game of Thrones.” That episode, “The Rains of Castamere,” set the various worlds of social media into a tizzy with its depiction of an event from the George R.R. Martin novels known as “The Red Wedding.” Before the episode had a chance to air on the West Coast of the States, Facebook, Twitter, and various websites were already afire with exclamations of “OMG!” and “I can’t believe it!”

When I sat down and watched the episode for myself, I found that even though no one had put forth any specific spoilers, I was not caught off guard by the events in the way that the storytellers likely intended. This was due to the fact that even though I did not know exactly what to expect, I knew to expect something.

I thought back to when I first saw “The Sixth Sense” in a theater. I realized what the twist was before it was revealed in the movie, (I found it odd that no one other than Haley Joel Osment ever spoke directly to Bruce Willis), but I wondered if I only figured it out because I knew that there was a twist ending coming my way in the first place. In other words, is it already a spoiler just to know that something worth spoiling even exists in a film?

Why did I just spend 250 words discussing something other than the movie being reviewed? Because “Prank” is difficult to discuss after the fact without mentioning its twist. And although these remaining paragraphs will be as spoiler-free as possible, identifying that a twist exists violates what was posited three sentences ago and puts the audience on its toes before viewing the film.

Before firing off an angry message in this direction, understand that you were likely to see the twist coming anyway. It is not terribly well hidden to begin with and as a Culture Crypt reader, you have already demonstrated exceptional sophistication and intelligent tastes that preclude one from being so easily hornswoggled.

END POSSIBLY MILD *SPOILERS*

Although the shift in narrative direction is important to the movie, “Prank” does not live or die by it. The movie is more centrally focused on themes of teenage behavior and adaptation to social conflicts than it is on action entertainment.

In fact, the North American DVD box art for “Prank” is highly misrepresentative of what the film actually entails. Grim-faced clowns and tied-up cheerleaders intentionally, and shamelessly, attract horror genre fans, but expectations should be tempered differently for “Prank.” With plenty of blood and several intense situations, there is definitely horror to be had. But IMDB more correctly classifies the applicable genre as “Crime.” That clown mask on the cover appears only once, and briefly at that. This is not a slasher film poised to frighten with jump scares and a body count. “Prank” is social commentary.

Star Trek fan Connor has had enough of having his face shoved into dirty toilets by school bully Dax. Connor’s equally nerdy friend Jordan finds himself roped into his buddy’s partially harebrained scheme to make Dax suffer an even worse humiliation. With a video camera documenting every phase in the plan, the dorky duo plots the prank to end all pranks. Of course, what they do not plan for is for someone to end up dead.

“Prank” demonstrates a smart use of the “found footage” style, except for feeling the need to accompany each press of the camera’s power button with an annoying triple beep. Rarely is there a moment where the question comes up, “why are they recording right now?” The format folds into the story well and moments of brief incredulity are rescued by a script that recognizes where its plot holes are.

Perhaps the script is too self-aware. “Prank” pulls out a few writer tricks of having the characters outright question when an action fails to make logical sense. They acknowledge that the problem at least exists in the fiction, although the action still moves right past it. Yet there are also times when the script chooses to address story issues that other films would not even notice. In one scene, a character asks, why don’t you just call the police? The response is, I already did, but someone told them to expect a prank call from me. Finally, a film’s characters, and its writer, actually consider the sensible course of action, and add a quick hit of dialogue to have its omission explained.

While the story structure works well enough, the dialogue and characterization do not ring as true. There is a heavy reliance on curse words that feels as forced and unnatural as it does unnecessary. The greater failure is that none of the characters are sympathetic. When not treating their Plain Jane gal pal disrespectfully, the two nerdy buddies are at times outright hateful to one another, even to the point where punches to the face are thrown. Writer/director Yiuwing Lam may have intended there to be moral ambiguity all around in order for the ultimate message to have more meaning. But that message loses impact when the audience detachment from the personalities onscreen results in a drought of emotional investment.

Nick Renaud and Henry Monfries are okay as the two lead boys, but their performances have a taint of rehearsed-ness to them that undermines the authenticity. In particular, laughs both sinister and jovial sound hollow and staged. It could have been worse, but that observation is not really a glowing compliment.

“Prank” is admirable for a first feature, and has a chance to satiate those searching for a different vein of “found footage” crime thriller. Still, even with several bullet points in the “Pros” column, it is a shame that the “Cons” of “Prank” end up on a longer list. Yiuwing Lam is creative enough to craft a contemporary story with much to offer in terms of meaning and entertainment. But what exactly he intends for the audience to take away is partially unclear in the aftermath of the movie. The characters and dialogue are not fully up to the task of meeting the story’s ambition. “Prank” is one of those films that once it ends, thinking back on it with even mild scrutiny shows that the plot does not hold its entire glass of water. That the film loses itself in its own intention of being simultaneously relevant and suspenseful is what makes “Prank” a story that tries too much without having the tools to pull off the job completely.